coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  At the time of the events giving rise to the application, Mr Resul Sadak was the provincial leader and the other applicants were members of the Peoples’ Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi, hereinafter “HADEP”) in Şırnak, which was a province in the State of Emergency region.
5.  On 23 September 2000 Resul Sadak, Nihat Osal, Mehmet Çakar, Rustem Bayar[3], Tahir Kutlu, Cengiz Balık, İzzet Belge, Abdurrazak İnan[4], Mehmet Temelkuran, Mehmet Nezir Ayan and Yakup Uyar went to Batman in order to participate in the Batman Provincial Congress of HADEP in two cars belonging to Yakup Uyar and Erdal Güler. On their way back to Şırnak from Batman, they were stopped in Düzova village, in Cizre, and arrested by gendarmerie officers. The applicants were then taken to the Şırnak provincial gendarmerie command.
6.  On 27 September 2000 at 2 p.m. Erdal Güler was taken into custody. He was kept in custody until 11 a.m. on 1 October 2000.
7.  On 1 October 2000 the applicants were brought before the Şırnak public prosecutor and the Şırnak Magistrates’ Court (sulh ceza mahkemesi). On the same day, the Şırnak Magistrates’ Court ordered that Resul Sadak, Nihat Osal, Mehmet Çakar, Rustem Bayar1, Tahir Kutlu, Cengiz Balık, İzzet Belge, Abdurrazak İnan2, Mehmet Temelkuran, Mehmet Nezir Ayan and Erdal Güler be detained on remand and that Yakup Uyar be released.
8. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants on charges of aiding and abetting the PKK contrary to Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713, and illegal possession of firearms and explosives contrary to Article 264 § 5 of the Criminal Code and Article 13 § 2 of Law no. 6136.
9.  On 12 December 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered the applicants’ release pending trial.
10.  In 2002 and 2003 the applicants were acquitted of the charges against them.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Kloštar Ivanić.
5.  On 1 September 1999 the Ivanić Grad Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Ivanić Gradu) adopted a judgment ordering a certain F.P. to pay some money to the applicant. On 18 May 2000 the applicant sought enforcement of the above judgment.
6.  The Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) issued an enforcement order on 6 July 2000.
7.  On 20 November 2000 a court bailiff attempted to draft a seizure list of F.P.’s possessions, but he refused to cooperate.
8.  On 19 December 2000 the applicant informed the court that F.P. owned a motor vehicle and proposed to seize it. On 17 April 2001 the court invited the applicant to advance the costs of the bailiff’s intervention, which the applicant did on 25 April 2001. On 12 April 2002 the court scheduled another on-site intervention for 3 June 2002, which was unsuccessful because F.P. once again refused to cooperate.
9.  Pursuant to the applicant’s further motion, on 26 September 2002 the court decided that another on-site intervention would be scheduled after the applicant advanced the costs.
10.  The applicant asked the court to size F.P.’s passport on 20 February 2003. Following that demand, on 1 July 2003 the court asked the Ministry of the Interior whether F.P. was the owner of a certain motor vehicle. The Ministry replied in negative on 22 July 2003.
11.  The applicant then on 8 September 2003 asked for another bailiff’s intervention.
12.  However, on 24 May 2004 the case-file was transferred to the newly-established Zaprešić Municipal Court.
13.  Since F.P.’s wife presented the evidence that F.P. had paid part of the sum due to the applicant during the bailiff’s intervention on 25 October 2004, the intervention was adjourned with consent of the applicant’s legal representative.
14.  However, F.P. did not comply with the rest of his obligation and therefore, on 24 December 2004 the applicant asked for another bailiff’s intervention. The intervention took place on 8 March 2005 and a seizure list was drafted.
15.  On 29 September 2005 the applicant asked the court to schedule a public auction. The auction was scheduled for 22 November 2005.
16.  The enforcement proceedings still appear to be pending before the first-instance court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the town of Krasnyy Luch, Lugansk region, Ukraine.
5.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnolutskyy Town Court against her former employer, the Knyagininska State Mining Company (Шахта «Княгинінська» ДХК «Донбасантрацит»), for salary arrears and compensation for moral damage. On 5 June 2003 the court awarded the applicant 3,300.02[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Краснолуцького міського суду Луганської області).
6.  In July 2003 the Krasnolutskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.
7.  By letter of 2 June 2004, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the debtor's accounts had been frozen, that it was impossible to seize the debtor's property because the debtor was a State enterprise.
8.  On 25 March 2005 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor enterprise.
9.  The applicant received UAH 1,187.98; according to her, the rest of the debt remains unpaid.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Lugansk.
5.  On 8 August 2001 the Leninskyy District Court of Lugansk ordered the State Enterprise “Luganskyy Stankobudivelnyy Zavod” to pay the applicant UAH 2,575.34[1] in salary arrears and compensation for the delay in its payment.
6.  On 13 September 2001 the Leninskyy District Bailiffs' Service of Lugansk instituted enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 13 November 2002 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the decisions in his favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the debtor's lack of funds.
8.  On 19 April 2005 the applicant was paid the amount due to him in full.
9.  In April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court of Lugansk against the same company, seeking compensation for its failure to pay him the judgment debt of 8 August 2001.
10.  On 8 July 2002 the court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 5 September 2002 and 28 January 2003, respectively, the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 8 July 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 14 April 1992 the Imotski Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Imotskom) gave judgment ordering a certain A.B. to pay the applicant the equivalent of 14,000 German marks in Yugoslav dinars.
6.  On 10 December 1992 the applicant applied for enforcement of the above judgment. Shortly afterwards the court issued a writ of execution by seizure of A.B.'s movable property.
7.  It appears that before 5 November 1997 (the date of the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia) the court made several unsuccessful attempts to seize A.B.'s movables.
8.  On 17 July 2000 the court ordered A.B. to disclose his assets (prokazni popis imovine). However, since A.B. failed to comply with that order, on 3 September 2001 the applicant asked that the enforcement be carried out on the A.B.'s bank accounts.
9.  The court held a hearing on 25 April 2002 concerning the applicant's proposal and on 14 May 2002 sent letters to all banks in the Imotski region asking for information of A.B.'s bank accounts.
10.  Since the banks' replies lacked certain information, the court again sent letters to the banks on 12 December 2002 asking for further details of A.B.'s bank accounts.
11.  The hearing scheduled for 2 October 2003 was adjourned because the applicant failed to appear.
12.  On 12 January 2004 the applicant asked that the enforcement be carried out on A.B.'s account in a bank in Zagreb.
13.  The court issued a new writ of execution on 13 April 2004.
14.  On 8 April 2005 the court held a hearing in order to verify compliance with the writ of execution.
15.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending since neither party informed the Court of the contrary.
16.  Meanwhile, on 24 June 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining in substance about the length of the above enforcement proceedings. On 4 May 2004 that court replied, without issuing a formal decision, that it lacked jurisdiction since the applicant did not file his complaint against any individual decision issued by a State body.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the village of Kovsharivka, the Kharkiv Region.
5.  On 24 July 1997 the labour disputes commission of the Joint Stock Company “Kupyanskiy Lyvarniy Zavod” (“the KLZ”), in which the State held 66.18% of the share capital, ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 1,017[1] in salary arrears.
6.  In August 1997 the Kupyansk Town Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 14 December 2004 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001 and the debtor's lack of funds.
8.  On 3 February 2006 the decision of 24 July 1997 was enforced in full.
9.  On 24 September 2003 the Kupyansk Town Court ordered the Joint Stock Company “Kupyanskiy Chavunolyvarniy Zavod”, in which the KLZ held 49% of the share capital, to pay the applicant UAH 920.16[2] in salary arrears.
10.  On 28 November 2003 the same court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal against the judgment of 24 September 2003 for failure to comply with procedural formalities. On 20 February 2004 the court rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation on the ground that the judgment was not appealed against under the ordinary appeal procedure.
11.  The applicant did not apply to the Bailiffs' Service for the execution of the judgment of 24 September 2003. It remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk.
5.  On 1 August 1999 the applicant's husband died due to the fault of an employee of the Dniprodzerzhynskelektrotrans Municipal Enterprise.
6.  On 3 September 2001 the Bagaliyskiy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 5,825.90[1] in compensation.
7.  On 26 June 2002 the Zavodskiy District Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings due to the debtor's lack of funds and the applicant's refusal to take the debtor's property instead of the money.
8.  On 17 June 2003 the company was declared bankrupt and the liquidation proceedings were initiated against it.
9.  The judgment remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Gorlivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-miskyy District Court against her former employer, the Artemvugillya State Mining Company (Управління по гасінню териконів в/о „Артемвугілля”), to recover salary arrears. On 17 November 1998 the court awarded the applicant 2,864.16[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Центрально-міського районного суду м.Горлівки).
6.  On 1 February 1999 the Tsentralno-miskyy District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Управління юстиції Центрально-міського району м.Горлівки) initiated the enforcement proceedings. On 28 March 2000 the applicant was paid UAH 665.28. From 20 June 2000 until 8 February 2001 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because of the bankruptcy proceedings instituted against the debtor. On 14 May 2003 the applicant was paid further UAH 333.03.
7.  On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-miskyy District Court of the town of Gorlivka against the Tsentralno-miskyy Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the court judgment in her favour. On 2 December 2003 the court rejected the applicant's claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs' Service had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of 17 November 1998. The court noted that the debtor's property was in a tax lien and that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State held at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.
8.  On 7 October 2005 the Government submitted that the applicant had further received UAH 261.88 and 677.04 in 2004. The applicant did not contest these submissions. According to the applicant, the rest of the sum due to her remains unpaid.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 5 October 1995 the applicant filed a civil action seeking damages with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against the weekly magazine A. (“the respondent”), claiming that it had published a libellous article about him.
6.  The court held several hearings before 5 November 1997, the date of the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia.
7.  At the hearing on 1 October 1998 the court heard a witness.
8.  The hearing scheduled for 19 November 1998 was adjourned for 12 March 1999 when the court heard another witness and an expert.
9.  At the next hearing on 2 February 2000 the court heard yet another witness and concluded the main hearing. On the same day, it gave judgment dismissing the applicant's claim. The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 April 2000.
10.  On 14 April 2000 the applicant appealed against the first instance judgment. On 15 October 2002 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed that judgment and remitted the case.
11.  On 10 December 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining about the length of the proceedings.
12.  On 22 March 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court held a hearing and adopted a new judgment granting the applicant's claim in part. The applicant appealed against the judgment and the proceedings are still pending before the second instance court.
13.  On 17 June 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint of 10 December 2002 as ill-founded. It took into consideration the period of some five years (between the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia and the filing of the constitutional complaint by the applicant), finding that the competent courts had acted expeditiously, while it observed that the proceedings had been somewhat complex.
4.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1953 respectively and live in Kherson. They are former employees of the OJSC “Dnipro” (“the Dnipro,” ВАТ “Дніпро”). At the material time the State owned more than 25% of the Dnipro's shares. The company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”
5.  On 16 October 1996 the State Property Fund (Фонд державного майна України) ordered the creation of the Dnipro's subsidiary company “Energiya” (the “Subsidiary,” ДП “Енергія”). The applicants were reassigned to the Subsidiary.
6.  On various dates the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Komsomolsky District Court of Kherson (the “District Court,” Комсомольський районний суд м. Херсона) against the Subsidiary for salary arrears and other payments.
7.  On 16 January and 18 August 2001 and 11 March 2002, the District Court awarded UAH 5,161.07[1], UAH 2,490.74[2] and UAH 1,167.60[3] respectively in favour of Ms Spas.
8.  On 16 January and 16 July 2001 and 11 March 2002, the District Court awarded UAH 6,381[4], UAH 1,728.79[5] and UAH 602.24[6] respectively in favour of Ms Voyna.
9.  The judgments given in favour of the applicants were not appealed against, became final and the writs of enforcement were transferred to the Komsomolsky District Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Комсомольського районного управління юстиції в м. Херсоні) for enforcement.
10.  On 27 April 2001 the Bailiffs attached the Subsidiary's equipment for forced sale. However, the sale was cancelled, as Bailiffs learned that the equipment was formally owned by the Dnipro, held in a tax lien and subject to a moratorium on the forced sale (see paragraph 4 above).
11.  On 2 November 2001 each applicant received UAH 300[7] of the awards due to them under the judgments given in their favour.
12.  On 4 April 2002 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court (Господарський суд Херсонської області) declared the Subsidiary bankrupt and ordered its liquidation, which was completed by 25 May 2004.
13.  The judgments given in favour of the applicants remain largely unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Krasnyy Luch, the Lugansk region.
5.  In 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) against his employer, the OJSC “Krasnyy Luch” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Красний Луч”), for salary arrears and other payments. At the material time the State owned 100% of the Company's shares. The Company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”
6.  On 17 January 2002 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,435.27.[1] This judgment was not appealed against and became final.
7.  On 5 March 2002 the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings in relation to this judgment.
8.  The judgment was enforced on 28 February 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the town of Nizhyn, Chernigov region, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Nizhynskyy Town Court against her former employer, the State-owned “Nizhynsilmash” enterprise (ВАТ «Ніжинсільмаш»), to recover salary arrears.
6.  On 3 October 2000 the court awarded the applicant 501.49[1] Ukrainian hrivnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Ніжинського міського суду).
7.  In October 2000 the Nizhyn Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Ніжинського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings. By letter of 28 January 2002, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that it was not possible to sell the debtor's property as, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced. It also stated that the debtor's property was in a tax lien.
8.  On 29 May 2003 the judgment was enforced.
9.  In June 2001 the applicant instituted new proceedings in the same court against the same enterprise to receive further payments and compensation.
10.  On 11 July 2001 the court found for the applicant and awarded her UAH 275. On 13 December 2001 the Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and awarded the applicant UAH 440.24[2] (Ухвала Апеляційного суду Чернігівської області). On 7 June 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.
11.  In July 2004 the judgment of 13 December 2001 was enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and resides in the town of Novovolynsk, Volyn region, Ukraine.
5.  In November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novovolynskyy Town Court against his former employer, State Mining Company No.1 “Novovolynska” (Шахта №1 „Нововолинська”), for salary arrears and other payments due to him. On 11 December 2000 the court awarded the applicant 34,207.10[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) in compensation for industrial disease and in other payments (Рішення Нововолинського міського суду Волинської області).
6.  On 12 January 2001 the Novovolynskyy District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Нововолинського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.
7.  By the letters of 19 February and 10 April 2002, and 23 December 2003, the Novovolynskyy District Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that it was not possible to sell the debtor's property as, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001, a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced. It also stated that the debtor's property was in a tax lien.
8.  In 2001-2004 the court judgment was enforced by instalments, the final amount being paid on 6 December 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  On 25 June 1987 the Istanbul Municipality decided to expropriate two houses that belonged to the applicant and located in Beyoğlu, Istanbul. The applicant filed an action before the Istanbul Administrative Court to annul the decision of the Municipality. On 22 December 1993 the Administrative Court dismissed his request. A committee of experts assessed the value of the property at 11.590.000 Turkish Liras (TRL), and this amount was consequently paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.
7.  On 18 January 1994 the applicant filed an action before the Beyoğlu Civil Court of General Jurisdiction for increased compensation.
8.  On 28 May 1998 there was a hearing attended by neither the applicant nor his lawyer. Subsequently, the court decided to close the case until the applicant renewed his petition. On 5 June 1998, following the new petition filed by the applicant’s lawyer, the case was resumed.
9.  Twenty three hearings were held before the Beyoğlu Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, during six of which neither the applicant nor his lawyer were present.
10.  On 16 July 1998 the court awarded the applicant TRL 615.478.000[1] of additional compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate, as of 22 December 1993.
11.  Following the applicant’s appeal, on 19 December 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Beyoğlu court. This decision was notified to the applicant on 26 January 2001.
12.  The applicant requested the Court of Cassation to rectify its decision. On 23 March 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request.
13.  In his observations dated 30 June 2006, the applicant informed the Registry that he had not yet been paid the award determined by the first-instance court on 16 July 1998.